C17 Globemaster Deal Done

[zaxcollix]

..Frankly this is a HUGE mistake. We have already committed to P-8I, C-17 & C-130.

If ever we get a new PM with real b@lls focused on Indian self interest and conduct few more Nuke tests our Armed forces logistics will become defunct.

Then we can say ta ta bye bye to 2 front war and even 1 front war.

 

[Abingdonboy]

..Frankly this is a HUGE mistake. We have already committed to P-8I, C-17 & C-130.

If ever we get a new PM with real b@lls focused on Indian self interest and conduct few more Nuke tests our Armed forces logistics will become defunct.

Then we can say ta ta bye bye to 2 front war and even 1 front war.

By b@lls you mean 0 brains?!! Why would ANY nation never mind India conduct nuke tests these days? Especially when India is a signatory to the comprehensive test ban treaty. Why would india invite putative action just for the sake of it?

The US products India is getting aren't frontline fighters but they are the best in their respective feilds. India isn't living the 1970s anymore times have changed.

 

[kaykay]

They are, but I meant it in the payload area of 30 to 50t, which is similar to what our IL 76 can carry. Not to mention that the C17 is too expensive to replace the IL 76 1 on 1. For a single C17 we can get 1 x A400 + 1 x A330, while both could be used in transport (tactical and strategic) and tanker roles.

true words....but IMO 10 C-17s are enough to replace 17 IL-76s...correct me if I am wrong???

 

[zaxcollix]

By b@lls you mean 0 brains?!! Why would ANY nation never mind India conduct nuke tests these days? Especially when India is a signatory to the comprehensive test ban treaty. Why would india invite putative action just for the sake of it?

The US products India is getting aren't frontline fighters but they are the best in their respective feilds. India isn't living the 1970s anymore times have changed.

Especially when India is a signatory to the comprehensive test ban treaty.????.......educate yourself. ..... everything else you said follows from initial ignorance so no reply needed.

 

[sancho]

true words....but IMO 10 C-17s are enough to replace 17 IL-76s...correct me if I am wrong???

Not possible, because we need at least equal numbers to have a useful operational capability in the heavy lift role. 26/11 actually showed us, that not higher payload is the important point, but higher numbers of capable aircrafts. That's why I would prefer to not buy 6 additional C17s, but 12 x A400s for the same ammount of money. That would mean 17 x IL 76 will be replaced by 22 x new aircrafts (12 x A400 + 10 x C17), but with higher numbers, payload and at least for the A400 also multi role capability.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Not possible, because we need at least equal numbers to have a useful operational capability in the heavy lift role. 26/11 actually showed us, that not higher payload is the important point, but higher numbers of capable aircrafts. That's why I would prefer to not buy 6 additional C17s, but 12 x A400s for the same ammount of money. That would mean 17 x IL 76 will be replaced by 22 x new aircrafts (12 x A400 + 10 x C17), but with higher numbers, payload and at least for the A400 also multi role capability.

Surely wrt quicker mobilisation the C-17s are irrelevant and the 26/11 point is a moot one as the IAF have dedicated C-130s for Spec-ops roles and it has been stated that the C-130s will be used for NSG airlift. And not to mention the IAF is also getting the C-27J/C-295 and MRTAs. Not to mention the availability of these modern air lifters will be much higher than he machines they replace.

 

[kaykay]

Not possible, because we need at least equal numbers to have a useful operational capability in the heavy lift role. 26/11 actually showed us, that not higher payload is the important point, but higher numbers of capable aircrafts. That's why I would prefer to not buy 6 additional C17s, but 12 x A400s for the same ammount of money. That would mean 17 x IL 76 will be replaced by 22 x new aircrafts (12 x A400 + 10 x C17), but with higher numbers, payload and at least for the A400 also multi role capability.

well yeah...you are quite right in that way.....also we are going with just 45 MTAs which are meant to replace 100+ An-32s but again I think we can further raise the orders...anyway what's your openion on this??

 

[sancho]

well yeah...you are quite right in that way.....also we are going with just 45 MTAs which are meant to replace 100+ An-32s but again I think we can further raise the orders...anyway what's your openion on this??

MTA will offer us a good medium class utility aircraft, that is cost-effective and offers us a base of aircrafts that are sanction prone, that we can customize to our needs needs, while offering morea payload capability and variety than the AN 32s. That's why I would like to see the propengined C295 to complement them, which is actually more similar to the An 32s. So we might increase the MTA orders a bit, but it won't be a 1 on 1 replacement, since MTA is more capable and because we will procure a new lower end aircraft too.
With these 2 in the normal troop and cargo transport roles, including smaller vehicles for the MTA and bigger transport roles including IFV, SPH, trucks, artillery... via A400 and C17, IAF would be perfectly equipped for any requirement!

 

[DARIUS]

Hey koushik,thank god tui ekhane achis.Ha,amio John Cenar birat fan.By the way,localoca ke darun th*p*li.lol.O rokom kha*k*r ba*hc*a kothao dekini.lol.

Chi chi chi lojja korche na eishob thapano tapano bhasha byabohar korcho????